This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: [64bit] Some packaging problems
- From: Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin at cygwin dot com>
- To: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
- Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 15:48:10 +0200
- Subject: Re: [64bit] Some packaging problems
- References: <51E5BA53 dot 4000806 at cornell dot edu> <20130717083049 dot GA26647 at calimero dot vinschen dot de> <51E69B6D dot 50208 at cwilson dot fastmail dot fm>
- Reply-to: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
On Jul 17 09:26, Charles Wilson wrote:
> On 7/17/2013 4:30 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >On Jul 16 17:25, Ken Brown wrote:
> >>1. The x86_64 distro has both libexpat1-devel and libexpat-devel,
> >>with the files of the latter being a subset of those of the former.
> >>In addition, libexpat1-devel is missing a setup.hint, so it is put
> >>into the Misc category and installed by default. BTW, there are
> >>packages depending on both of these in the distro, so there will be
> >>other changes needed after one of them is removed.
> >For all I can tell, libexpat-devel seems to be the old version,
> >libexpat1-devel the new one. We should probably manually fix the deps
> >in the various hint files to require libexpat1-devel and remove the
> >libexpat-devel package. Yaakov?
> Unless two different versions of a library's -devel package can
> coexist -- e.g. all include files and static/import libraries are in
> versioned subdirs:
> /usr/include/libpng15/*.h /usr/lib/libpng15/*.a
> /usr/include/libpng16/*.h /usr/lib/libpng16/*.a
> we don't typically put the DLL number in the -devel package name. In
> this case, the libexpat1-devel package contains:
> so it's not like it could coexist with a future libexpat2-devel. I
> think the "libexpat1-devel" name in 2.1.0-2 is a mistake, and it
> expat should be repackaged to use "traditional" names, as it did in
> libexpat-devel (no "1")
> Then the existing requires: in other package's setup.hints do not
> need to be changed.
To follow the 32 bit lead, we should stick to libexpat1-devel. See the
32 bit version:
> >>3. The dependencies man ==> groff ==> perl bring perl into a default
> >Hmm, is that bad?
> Very. perl is just as bad python, when it comes to creating a
> trimmed down installation, and we just went thru a significant
> amount of pain to split cygutils specifically to avoid pulling
> python in as a dependency of a Base install.
> >OTOH, the 32 bit groff only requires some default
> >libs, not bash, sed, and perl. Why's that?
> groff ships with some scripts
> and cygport is smart. We should probably split the groff package up
> as well...fedora has
> groff-x11 (*)
Sounds good to me.
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com